Be Careful What You Wish For

When the United States backed dictator Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980’s, we were told it was as a bulwark against Iran, the influence of which could give rise to an Islamic Iraq. When we ousted Hussein in 2003, we were told that we were giving Iraqis democracy, yet we remain in that country almost a decade later, due in large part to the fear that a free Iraq might choose Islam.

As evidenced by Iraq, American foreign policy seems to be that dictators are good so long as they’re our dictators and democracy is good so long as it’s our kind of democracy, and those who consistently push for US foreign intervention will argue for either accordingly.

Removed enough from America’s former support for Hussein, neoconservatives could successfully push a “freedom” narrative to get their way in Iraq. In his Second Inaugural Address, President George W. Bush even pledged to end “tyranny around the world” as part of a “Freedom Agenda.”

In confronting the turmoil in Egypt, this narrative has become a bit more complicated. Reports the Jewish daily Forward: “After once uniting to support regime change in Iraq through an American military invasion, neoconservatives are now divided as they face the prospect of a regime change in Egypt driven by popular internal forces out of America’s control.”

“America’s control” indeed. Many on both the Left and Right who opposed the invasion of Iraq instinctively knew that the neoconservatives were simply using 9/11 as an excuse to start a war they’d been aching for as far back as the Clinton administration. All the talk about spreading “freedom” and “democracy” in Iraq was just that–talk. As many in the loop at that time now attest, high ranking Bush officials were trying to somehow link Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks literally days after the World Trade Center fell. A permanent US footprint in Iraq was the goal since day one, and any “WMD,” “mushroom cloud” or democratic rhetoric necessary to sell the American people on this would do.

But the U.S. already has a footprint in Egypt and his name is Hosni Mubarak. To their credit–or perhaps embarrassment, as one gets the impression that they desperately want some sort of vindication for the Iraq War–some neocons are siding with the protesters. These neoconservatives deserve credit for their intellectual consistency, however imperfect their argument. But many are siding with Mubarak (including Bush luminaries John Bolton and Dick Cheney), arguing that an Islamic regime might arise if Egyptians are allowed self-determination. This may very well be the case. The same Bush administration that once promoted free and fair elections for Palestine immediately withdrew their support for such democracy the moment those voters chose Hamas. We are told we must stay in Afghanistan indefinitely lest that country fall back into the hands of the Taliban. We must remain in Iraq because it must remain “civil”–meaning any subsequent chaos cannot produce a government antithetical to America’s perceived interests.

The difference between Iraq and Egypt is this: You can’t give people democracy. They have to fight for it themselves, something the Founders of our own republic knew all too well. This type of genuine, democratic revolution is exactly what’s happening in Egypt today, and every neocon who now thumps his chest about the rise of an Egypt-based “caliphate” movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood probably knows he’s being every bit as deceptive as when they were pitching “freedom” and “democracy” in Iraq. The hypocrisy is glaring. But there is a point to be made even amongst the mostly nonsensical, Islamophobic hyperbole–real democracy in the Middle East will often result in a significant part of the population choosing precisely the type of Islamic state we supposedly want to discourage. This is no doubt as true in Egypt today as it is has always been in Iraq.

The larger and more important question should be–why should the United States even have to fear Islamic states? What has changed so drastically since the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s when we were more worried about Communists than Muslims? Has Islam become radical only recently? Has this ominous caliphate plan just been discovered? Or has our foreign policy in that part of the world significantly changed? For the past three decades it’s hard to imagine how America could have been more involved in either Iraq or Egypt, or for that matter, most of the Middle East.

The same “democracy” we wanted to bestow upon Iraq is now being discouraged in Egypt precisely by many of those once the most enthusiastic about spreading it. And considering the now transparent insincerity of their democratic rhetoric, neoconservatives should be probably more careful about what they wish for in the future. They just might get it.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 12 comments

12 Responses to Be Careful What You Wish For

“As many in the loop at that time now attest, high ranking Bush officials were trying to somehow link Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks literally days after the World Trade Center fell. A permanent US footprint in Iraq was the goal since day one, and any “WMD,” “mushroom cloud” or democratic rhetoric necessary to sell the American people on this would do.”

Hell, Jack, we know that a war against Saddam Hussein was on George W. Bush’s agenda from day 1 in office, according to former Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neil, despite Bush’s strong assertions in his debates with Al Gore that he desired a “humble foreign policy” and was strongly opposed to “nation building.” That was 8 months before 9/11. You can catch O’Neil being interviewed in a 60 Minutes segment in February 2004 promoting the book “The Price of Loyalty” by Ron Suskind.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml Alternatively, portions of the same interview can be seen in a video promoting Ron Paul’s candidacy that also includes Bush’s remarks during the debate with Gore. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inyCkCvqRO0

I don’t normally agree with what you write, Jack, but this is a good piece.

On the other hand, let’s not pretend that Bush’s ‘Freedom Agenda’ was anything more than a fraud, intended to gloss over the fact that the reasons his Administration had given for invading Iraq in 2002/3 had been proven to be 100% wrong. No WMD, no terrorist links, no threat at all. They needed – some – reason to keep boots on the ground over there, after all.

“The larger and more important question should be–why should the United States even have to fear Islamic states? ” This. Jack has asked a question I have yet to hear asked in any Western political circles. Reality has shown that the more fundamentalist an Islamic state is, the less able it is to in any way advance economically, practically govern or provide for its populace, let alone become some sort of conquering threat to the West . In some ways the most fundamentalist version of Sunni Islam – as espoused by the Taliban for example, has an in-built safety mechanism in that it hinders any sort of real power. Let Muslim nations vote for such states if they wish and then live with the ensuing penury and joylessness that it brings them. They themselves can then grapple with the sacrifice of this world’s comforts for the one provided by Allah in the next, or not.

The Israeli Lobby is desperate to help Mubarek hang on,because they know that a democratically elected government in Egypt won’t be as favorable to Israel as Mubarek.is now.
This has also become US policy,on the basis that what Israel wants
Israel gets!

That the USA is not supporting a democratic revolution is scandalous and illustrates the power of the Jewish Lobby in DC,,,,.
..and very silly long-term,as the USA will win few friends amongst the new democratic regime which will emerge..all chances sacrificed at the demands of Israel and that all-powerful lobby

There will be no change in american thinki8ng as the administration is out dated with old fassion claims and couter claims.
It is time for america to think what and how they are harming world at large and Muslims in particular.
They have become enemy number for islamic countries.

“The larger and more important question should be–why should the United States even have to fear Islamic states? What has changed so drastically since the 1940′s, 50′s and 60′s when we were more worried about Communists than Muslims?”

As I see it, the United States Government must promote ‘fear’ of Islamic states in order to keep Boobus Americanus in a sufficient state of alarm so as to support the continuous feeding of the congressional-military-industrial-national security complex now that the ‘Evil Empire’ is no longer the enemy du jour. This, with ‘fear’ of an emerging China as a long-term backup plan.

It’a all globaloney. The Cold War was one big geopolitical circle-jerk. Foreign policy elites and militarists on both sides were enriched. Sure the Ruskies were mean guys and they had all those nukes (they still do!) but their army, however large, was woefully maintained, and, as we know now, they never had any intentions of conquering Western Europe.

Today’s Muslim threat has been conjured up by special interests within America’s corporatist national security state in order to provide a justification for its massive budgets. Any informed person knows that 9/11 was blowback for the US government’s decades long meddling in the Middle East.

Suffice it to say there are a multiitude of narrow special interests determining our government’s foreign policy but none of them have anything to do with genuine national security or the real interests of the American people.

There is one other “minor” notion that the Founding Fathers knew all to well.

There is no relationship whatsoever between limited government and democracy. None.

In fact, the two are often at war with each other. You must have a real diffusion of power. And a “Constitution” can help, but it only has meaning if it codifies existing institutions. It does not create them. It strengthens what already exists.

Fighting for democracy is only half a solution, and it will not yield positive results. It yields authoritative regimes less stable than dictatorships. If the United States were a democracy, our society would give way to combinations of extremism, fragmentation and chaos.

Such a short post must be designed to draw out yet more questions, so here are a few points that have crossed my mind that the more erudite may wish to further expand:

If populism reflects the real views of a people, rather than a manipulated one, then it should be applauded as democracy.

Whose terrorism may they want to support? Some regimes will see aspects of the uprisings themselves as terrorism.

It is in no way surprising that a US think tank is thinking of oil. What is a reasonable price and how much of the wealth generated should go to the people as national investment? Keep the people poor and there are more profits for governments and their oilco partners.

What right does the USA, China, EU members etc. have to an expectation of cheap commodities?